5 ms·

Shrug, seems like every application that's not designed to live in debian package repositories from the ground up eventually evolves an updater, or even a packa

Shrug, seems like every application that's not designed to live in debian package repositories from the ground up eventually evolves an updater, or even a package manager for plugins. This hubris isn't unique to google, it's everywhere because we fundamentally haven't figured out how to manage updates in a way that meets requirements.

noir_lord 7y ago
A good point and one of those strange troughs we get stuck in, every application having it's own different incompatible update system is clearly a bad idea but solving it requires the co-operation of disparate teams each of whom consider the amount of pain it causes end users as minor. Honestly Fedora (and arch, ubuntu, debian and so on) simply spoils me, everything I need to do my job is a `dnf install` away and it just works. I'm reminded of that every time I have to interact with a windows desktop how poorly the other (majority) side have it.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  The flip side is stuff like Windows getting Firefox updates months ahead of Ubuntu (not sure if Fedora addresses this somehow), back in the day. There is something to be said about letting application developers control the update rhythm of their application's releases.
  - aibara 7y ago
    Ubuntu gets Firefox updates within a day or two of release. It's been like that for years.
    - cmurf 7y ago
      Same with Fedora.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mey 7y ago
I wish both OSX/MacOS and Windows had a generic solution for 3rd party applications to check for updates, that wasn't tied to their respective stores. It's such a common pattern and requirement, the OS should/could provide the infrastructure to have a background service that periodically checks external links for availability of new software.
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  It seems like nearly every piece of macOS software outside of the App Store uses Sparkle for updates https://sparkle-project.org/ https://sparkle-project.org/
  - cornstalks 7y ago
    I like how Sparkle mentions being “modern” and uses “supports [...] Xcode 5.0 through 7.0” as evidence. Xcode 7 was released in 2015; the current version of Xcode is 11. Looks like the website needs a little updating... (To clarify, I’m just pointing out a humorous observation, not making a statement on Sparkle)
  - josephg 7y ago
    Right; except sparkle is terrible. At exactly the moment I want to use the app I get bothered by a difficult decision: Do I want to interrupt the flow of my work and wait a couple minutes so it can download and update, moving something that should happen in the background into something that directly interrupts my flow. Or skip the update and hope there were no important security / compatibility issues fixed. (Or kick the cart down the road and have it remind me later.) The button I want is “update in the background when you close the app”, and it shouldn’t ask; it should just quietly do that. For all that chrome’s updater is like a tropical disease, it sure has way better UX than sparkle.
    - cameldrv 7y ago
      You forgot that, after you've told it to download the update, it pops up another interrupting dialog asking whether you want to install the update. If you just tell it to update and go get a coffee, when you come back, it won't be done.
evmar 7y ago
Germane to this, the Debian package update model breaks both Chrome and Firefox: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote.html http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote....
- ben0x539 7y ago
  More fuel for the "immutable install paths" cause :)
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> we fundamentally haven't figured out how to manage updates in a way that meets requirements. Depends whose requirements. The user's requirements are incredibly straightforward: 1. Never update; there's no benefit. Updating is pushed on users anyway on the theory that they're connected to the internet, but it's not meant to help them. It's meant to help other people. Updates that help the user are generally provided on a pull model, and often charged for.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Thats the first user requirement. You forgot this one 2. Never be vulnerable to known attacks.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    I didn't forget. That is not a requirement for most users. The whole idea of forcing people to update is that we don't want them to be vulnerable, so that their machines aren't used against us. The users commonly don't suffer negative effects from being exploited.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Ransomware is big enough news that I don't think that's true even for very non-technical users.

noir_lord 7y ago

A good point and one of those strange troughs we get stuck in, every application having it's own different incompatible update system is clearly a bad idea but solving it requires the co-operation of disparate teams each of whom consider the amount of pain it causes end users as minor. Honestly Fedora (and arch, ubuntu, debian and so on) simply spoils me, everything I need to do my job is a `dnf install` away and it just works. I'm reminded of that every time I have to interact with a windows desktop how poorly the other (majority) side have it.

tsimionescu 7y ago
The flip side is stuff like Windows getting Firefox updates months ahead of Ubuntu (not sure if Fedora addresses this somehow), back in the day. There is something to be said about letting application developers control the update rhythm of their application's releases.
- aibara 7y ago
  Ubuntu gets Firefox updates within a day or two of release. It's been like that for years.
  - cmurf 7y ago
    Same with Fedora.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

mey 7y ago

I wish both OSX/MacOS and Windows had a generic solution for 3rd party applications to check for updates, that wasn't tied to their respective stores. It's such a common pattern and requirement, the OS should/could provide the infrastructure to have a background service that periodically checks external links for availability of new software.

wlesieutre 7y ago
It seems like nearly every piece of macOS software outside of the App Store uses Sparkle for updates https://sparkle-project.org/ https://sparkle-project.org/
- cornstalks 7y ago
  I like how Sparkle mentions being “modern” and uses “supports [...] Xcode 5.0 through 7.0” as evidence. Xcode 7 was released in 2015; the current version of Xcode is 11. Looks like the website needs a little updating... (To clarify, I’m just pointing out a humorous observation, not making a statement on Sparkle)
- josephg 7y ago
  Right; except sparkle is terrible. At exactly the moment I want to use the app I get bothered by a difficult decision: Do I want to interrupt the flow of my work and wait a couple minutes so it can download and update, moving something that should happen in the background into something that directly interrupts my flow. Or skip the update and hope there were no important security / compatibility issues fixed. (Or kick the cart down the road and have it remind me later.) The button I want is “update in the background when you close the app”, and it shouldn’t ask; it should just quietly do that. For all that chrome’s updater is like a tropical disease, it sure has way better UX than sparkle.
  - cameldrv 7y ago
    You forgot that, after you've told it to download the update, it pops up another interrupting dialog asking whether you want to install the update. If you just tell it to update and go get a coffee, when you come back, it won't be done.

evmar 7y ago

Germane to this, the Debian package update model breaks both Chrome and Firefox: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote.html http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote....

ben0x539 7y ago
More fuel for the "immutable install paths" cause :)

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> we fundamentally haven't figured out how to manage updates in a way that meets requirements. Depends whose requirements. The user's requirements are incredibly straightforward: 1. Never update; there's no benefit. Updating is pushed on users anyway on the theory that they're connected to the internet, but it's not meant to help them. It's meant to help other people. Updates that help the user are generally provided on a pull model, and often charged for.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
Thats the first user requirement. You forgot this one 2. Never be vulnerable to known attacks.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  I didn't forget. That is not a requirement for most users. The whole idea of forcing people to update is that we don't want them to be vulnerable, so that their machines aren't used against us. The users commonly don't suffer negative effects from being exploited.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Ransomware is big enough news that I don't think that's true even for very non-technical users.